| From: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_backup symlink? |
| Date: | 2000-07-10 22:35:58 |
| Message-ID: | 396A4FCE.770AD8D9@wgcr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner wrote:
> At 00:24 11/07/00 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >Philip Warner writes:
> >> Does anyone have a philosophical objection to a symlink from pg_dump to
> >> (new) pg_backup?
> >Yes. The behaviour of a program should not depend on the name used to
> >invoke it. You can use shell aliases or scripts for that.
> OK, I suppose I was thinking of the pg_dump symlink as a tool for
> compatibility.
There is already precedent -- postmaster is a symlink to postgres, but
operates differently due to its invocation name.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-07-10 22:39:21 | Re: Slashdot discussion |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-07-10 22:34:34 | Re: Link to postgesql components |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-07-10 22:38:35 | Re: more corruption |
| Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2000-07-10 22:33:11 | Re: pg_backup symlink? |